If you've never served in the military than you can't criticize those who have.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You have encapsulated, in one short sentence, the depth and breadth of the liberal disease. I salute you.

Thanks much. It's certainly the effect of liberalism, but the cause is more insidious. Think of it as the cool clique from high school deciding that being a Democrat is the way to be, and nobody else better even think of sitting at their table. When one of theirs is embarrassed, they close ranks, regardless of the facts. When one of the nerdy kids does something that warrants admiration, they find a way to take him down. Basically, MSNBC is one massive media attempt at a perpetual wedgie aimed at the likes of us.

It's a free country, it's silly to say that someone can't voice an opinion about the military or military affairs simply because they never served...however, it all depends on the issue and what they are trying to say about it as to whether anyone should listen or just laugh them off as a crazy moonbat. Some things require experience and detailed technical knowledge as the basis for an opinion, others are bigger policy issues or require broader knowledge than a professional's perspective, not that everyone who served was actually a professional by a long shot. The problem with the moonbats is that to be taken seriously, an argument on any proposition needs to have an open mind as its starting place, which virtually guarantees failure for them.

I'm also surprised Taverner didn't beat Bugsy to the punch on seconding that, he's been posting a ton of anti-military tripe lately.

I dropped out of school after my freshman year at Valparasio University because I was bored. I couldn't/wouldn't apply myself to things that I should have. Then I enlisted. Nothing taught me more about self-discipline, self-motivation, and life in general than that first tour.

Zeus has it right in his sig...

I support universal conscription after high school graduation.

Four boxes keep us free: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.

I dropped out of school after my freshman year at Valparasio University because I was bored. I couldn't/wouldn't apply myself to things that I should have. Then I enlisted. Nothing taught me more about self-discipline, self-motivation, and life in general than that first tour.

Zeus has it right in his sig...

I support universal conscription after high school graduation.

The problems with universal conscription are that it forces people who have no business in the armed forces into government service, and provides the federal government with a standing army of useful bodies for whatever mischief it may dream up. There is no substitute for motivated, dedicated volunteers who don't have a chip on their shoulders because they have to serve a country that they have been taught to regard as illegitimate (those leftist teachers have had them for years before we get to them), and the anti-draft sentiment during wartime can cripple the force. Besides which, draftees have a nasty habit of fragging their officers, and I have a vested interest in not getting fragged by some clown who'd be more at home occupying Wall Street than a trench.

The problems with universal conscription are that it forces people who have no business in the armed forces into government service, and provides the federal government with a standing army of useful bodies for whatever mischief it may dream up.

That's true, and they should be sorted out during basic training. I've seen that happen.

Originally Posted by Odysseus

There is no substitute for motivated, dedicated volunteers who don't have a chip on their shoulders because they have to serve a country that they have been taught to regard as illegitimate (those leftist teachers have had them for years before we get to them), and the anti-draft sentiment during wartime can cripple the force.

I agree with that, to a point. But, even in a volunteer military, there will always be "cowboys". We saw some of that after 9/1/01.

Originally Posted by Odysseus

Besides which, draftees have a nasty habit of fragging their officers, and I have a vested interest in not getting fragged by some clown who'd be more at home occupying Wall Street than a trench.

I got a friend out of Vietnam, and into the University of Missouri, on an early discharge because he was afraid that he would be next. His company had already lost one platoon leader to one fragging incident.

All that being said, no system is perfect. But on the job, and in my town, and in my neighborhood, I prefer to associate with those who have had some honorable military service. I still think that the structured military environment is more beneficial for young people than not. Not always but, for the most part in my experience, they have been more trustworthy and honest.

They don't call WW2 vets the "greatest generation" for nothing. I don't know the percentages, but there were more draftees than volunteers.

Just my 2˘.......

Four boxes keep us free: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.

Well, the kid is flapping his gums because at the moment, it's sorta cold in Mommy's basement and the flapping sort of disguises his teeth from chattering.

Until the asshat actually rucks up and shoulders a weapon, he's just another punk kid who's trying to find a purpose in life. Even he knows at his reduced intellectual level that Mommy's basement ain't the place to spend much time.

That said, I can't agree to compulsory military/federal service. It takes too much time, effort and training to convert a civilian into a soldier vice, perhaps, 50-60 years ago and I would like to make sure that the guy I'm going to war with really wants to be there.

The Selective Service System is still in place to deal with national emergencies, so there's that option -- not likely it would ever be used in this day and age of limited-scope conflicts.

That's true, and they should be sorted out during basic training. I've seen that happen.

The problem with that is that you've already incurred the expense and hassle of getting those persons through MEPS and into basic. By the time you've weeded them out, they've proven toxic to the others in the company and demonstrated all of the qualities that we don't want in Soldiers. Plus, if they are weeded out without penalty, then they will inspire others to follow their example whenever things get tough, and if they do incur a penalty, then we end up back to square one, with the draft becoming a punitive exercise that will raise resistance.

Originally Posted by marv

I agree with that, to a point. But, even in a volunteer military, there will always be "cowboys". We saw some of that after 9/1/01.

Yes, but they were a lot fewer and further between. Increasing the pool by universal conscription means that you are guaranteeing an exponential increase in the number of lowlives that we take in, which takes us back to the mass disciplinary and morale issues that a draftee force brings.

Originally Posted by marv

I got a friend out of Vietnam, and into the University of Missouri, on an early discharge because he was afraid that he would be next. His company had already lost one platoon leader to one fragging incident.

This is a critical point. Think about the few fragging incidents that we've had in the post 9/11 army, and the pattern becomes pretty clear, that they were persons who were (a) deeply disturbed, (b) disicplinary problems for their units and (c) ideologically inclined to rebel against the US, but the most important thing is that they were isolated within their commands. The other Soldiers in their units didn't support their conduct and actively disdained them. You had to remove an officer from his unit because he was afraid of it, but the units in Iraq and Afghanistan that saw fragging incidents didn't have to remove officers or NCOs, because the troops themselves were not inclined to mutiny. The draftee culture included a disrespect for legitimate authority that pervaded the force, while the volunteer culture respects the authority of the leadership.

Originally Posted by marv

All that being said, no system is perfect. But on the job, and in my town, and in my neighborhood, I prefer to associate with those who have had some honorable military service. I still think that the structured military environment is more beneficial for young people than not. Not always but, for the most part in my experience, they have been more trustworthy and honest.

They don't call WW2 vets the "greatest generation" for nothing. I don't know the percentages, but there were more draftees than volunteers.

Just my 2˘.......

There were more draftees than volunteers (10. million out of 16.1 million total service members, or about 60%, as opposed to Vietnam, where roughly 70% of the military volunteered), but many of the draftees would have volunteered when the time came. Pearl Harbor galvanized a generation, and recruiting offices were swamped with volunteers, many of whom had to wait until there had been enough of an expansion of facilities to accommodate them. My father, for example, was drafted, but had the opportunity to waive it as the sole son in his family. He declined and served as a medic in the Pacific. The real issue in Vietnam wasn't simply the draft, it was the culture that told draftees that they had a right to rebel. Draft dodging was far more accepted during Vietnam than WWII, with over 100,000 draft dodgers fleeing the country. Protesters encouraged desertions and fragging, and gave aid and comfort to those who broke the law. A renewed draft would bring back that kind of preening idiocy among our elites (not that it's ever left, but they'd be free to express it), and the only reason that Charlie Rangel and other Democrats sought to restore a draft after 9/11 was because they knew that it would spark antiwar sentiment on college campuses (despite the media's attempts to create a mass movement, the vast majority of Americans supported the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and did not sympathize with the academic and celebrity imbeciles who mouthed off about their internationalism and lack of patriotism, which is why they complained about being "silenced" (although how silenced are you if you're complaining about it on multiple talk shows?). They want to go back to the days when they could spit on us in airports with impugnity, and that is what the OP is really complaining about.

I agree with you about the benefits of military service, and I think that those of us who have honorably served bring character traits to other areas that many civilians lack, but the impulse to force those traits on the general population is, I think, misguided. It's sort of like Nancy Pelosi arguing that we needed to double the number of Special Operations troops in the services, without understanding that in order to do that, we'd have to lower standards in order to accommodate the increase in graduates. We can draft the vast majority of students, but a peacetime draft will leave them idle most of the time, or worse, tempt the federal government to use them in inappropriate ways (think of what Obama would do with a vast army of conscripted labor), neither of which would provoke the attitudes that we want to incur in them. Volunteers understand that they have chosen our profession, and that they have to take the bad with the good, but draftees would simply bristle at the time wasted and the opportunities delayed. It wouldn't give them the right attitude, and the cost of keeping them equipped, paid, fed and housed would impose massive hikes in the defense budget, for little gain, since we'd end up having to take much of that money from Force Modernization, training and other critical areas. Right now, we have a small, effective and lethal force, but a conscript army would, by neccessity, be a large, cumbersome and ill-equipped force, and that would actually undermine our defense, since that force would be less effective in combat, especially if the powers that be decided to use them as green-suited social workers.

We can argue for the benefits of a draft in wartime, but in peacetime, or in a time of limited warfare, the consequences do not justify the limited benefits.